Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

If you're saying there's a pattern of marginalization or objectification of the female leads, I don't see how you could possibly think M:I III fits into that. After all,

in the climax of the film, Ethan is taken completely out of the action -- is, in fact, clinically dead -- and it's his wife who not only saves his life but single-handedly delivers the final defeat to the villain. So in the climactic minutes of the film, she becomes the hero who saves the day and he becomes the helpless love interest in need of rescue. It's a complete reversal of the traditional hero/damsel relationship and a brilliant subversion of the very same gender-role formula that you're talking about. That's one of the things I love the most about that film. And the fact that Cruise was willing to step aside and let someone else be the hero at the end gives me a lot of respect for him as a professional (leaving aside the matter of his personal life).

IV is probably my second favourite of the series after the first one, I really disliked the second and whilst the third one was ok it only felt like Mission Impossible during the Vatican bits.

My only quibble would be that I felt it peaked in the middle with the Dubai bits, I wasn't that impressed with the car park fight if I'm honest, plus the villain could have had a bit more screen presense.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. The villain was, for the most part, rather insipid and so were his motives. And the entire sequence in India felt pedestrian.

^Since Jeremy Renner was originally intended to be the new lead, he may well have been signed to do more than one movie.

Of course, a sense of connection between installments wasn't really a feature of the original show. The continuity, typically of '60s TV, was essentially nonexistent. The team members could show their faces on national or global TV at the climax of one episode and yet still be able to function as secret agents the next week. The team composition changed frequently; originally the intent was that a different team of specialists would be chosen every week, and although eventually the main cast members ended up being used much more regularly, cast changes between seasons happened frequently and without a word of explanation (until the final season, which also saw slight traces of continuity introduced for the first time).

^ Renner looks set to be a busy boy, doesn't he? He's taken over the Bourne series, there's Hawkeye in the Avengers and I think that the studio envisage Hansel and Gretel being a franchise too.

All the more reason that the people who wrote his M:I contract might've included a clause committing him to sequels, especially if they signed him in the first place with the intention of making him the new lead. Actors who sign up for franchise films these days are rarely signed for just one at a time. The contracts specifically commit them to multiple films, especially if they're busy, in-demand actors whose availability needs to be guaranteed in advance.

Do you have a contract for another one?
Yeah. If they so choose to use that. Or they can tell me to piss off. You know what I mean? It's their call. Like any other franchise, you want to keep the possibilities open.

So if they want to bring him back for M:I 5, he's already contractually bound to appear. Although if they don't want him back for whatever reason, they'd just let him out of the contract. But as you say, he's a popular fellow right now, so they probably would want him back.

^ Indeed. But IIRC, when he was first cast, the idea was that this would be more of a two-hander, as the studio were a bit wary of Tom's box office appeal (remember when Summer Redstone and Paramount broke up with Cruise and Redstone reckoned that Tom's couch-jumping behaviour had made M:I3 the least successful movie, even though it was the best?).

However, from what I can see, Tom has made a bit of a box-office renaissance, so my best guess (and that's all it is) is that they'll be happy to trust him with the MI reins all by himself again. But I know I'd be happy for the Ghost Protocol team to return.